Students with last names starting with letters A-K will take the negative position on tpt.
Are Interactive White Boards worth the investment for schools? Do they benefit the teaching and learning process? How or how not?
Please make sure you type your name at the very begining of your response. This will allow me to give credit where credit is due.
Justin Kaminski
On the outset and before looking further into this topic I thought smart boards were of great benefit. Looking purely at the technology aspect and the newness of this technology I thought that would be a great combination for both keeping students engaged and furthering the impact of their learning. It was not until I found the below article that I started to think of the possible drawbacks as well.
The one that struck me immediately was the cost of the smart boards. While the article isn't in an American denomination it still illustrates the point. With the money that is being spent it could be just as easily used somewhere else. Even if the technology or means are not as recent as the smart board that doesn't automatically mean the students will not benefit. The article brought up a couple of great reasons why. One that stuck out to me was the students concentrating more on the actual smart board itself and the glamour that comes with new technology and less on what is being taught. The students were blinded by the new product and as a result there was no documented proof that students performance increased with use. In addition teachers fell in the same category. Teachers became so caught up in what the smart board could do and the possibilities that the content in which they taught lacked substance. With that being said even with the awareness of the possibilities teachers didn't take advantage of them. For instance the article states they didn't use the music and video functions which in my eyes would have most certainly grabbed the attention of the students and would have made for a profoundly impactful anticipatory set. This is not to say that the fault falls strictly on the teachers lap, it also fell on the part of the school or district for not providing a training mechanism in which benefits the teachers and students. In most cases the teachers were subject to all day training workshops in which information was thrown at a rate that made it basically impossible to retain. This was then transcended to the students in the form of losing interest due to slowness in the class while teachers worked through the kinks of operation.
Lack of student participation and interest has been linked to the type of student as well. Studies in the article showed that students who were slower to pick up on things lost interest due to the inability to understand how they were to use the smart board. On the other end students seen as advanced were left bored as they were less impressed with the new technology and therefore not inclined to entertain the topic and weren't left with the desire to learn further. Upon further research after the smart board was released for a period of time it was concluded that more conventional means of instruction faired better. To me that reflects directly on the teacher and makes logical sense. The teacher must achieve the buy in and trust of the student before they can be effectively reached. In my opinion this can not be achieved by a machine. I am of the belief that there is no substitute for the words and insight that can be relayed if done creatively by the teacher. It is the responsibility of the teacher to ensure that their students are left with a meaningful learning experience that will benefit them not only in the classroom but into the future. Yes, that will take time as well much as a smart board training class will. However, with the lack of lagtime due to figuring out the technology there is a better chance the students will stay engaged. As long as the teacher sticks to meaningful and pertinent facts along with the back up of an activity, group work or any type of interactive group activity the students will be given the best chance. If the students are given a way to relate to the material there should be no reason to explore other options if it isn't madatory. An example I always use is a video we were shown in my Spanish I class in 8th grade. The purpose of the video was to learn South American countries and their capitals. The song that accompanied the video was catchy and therefore drew us in to the meaning of the lesson. As a matter of fact I watched the video for our week four optional post and was able to sing along and recall all of the countries and their capitals. This may not seem meaningful but please take into account I haven't watched the video or thought about South American countries or their capitals since I was in that class in 1993. Therefore I feel it falls on the teacher, their ability and desire to make the lesson(s) impactful and not so much on the technology in use.
Christina Hoskins
I love my smart board that is in my classroom. However, I do believe there is a negative side to the smartboard. It is extremely expensive along with the cost of the bulbs for the projector. A smartboard is only a good as the instructor. If your instruction can not make a lesson meaningful and interesting the smartboard is not going to help. It will get it a better apeal for a little while but it is the instructor that makes the board worth while. Teachers need to be trained to used the board correctly and effectively for lessons. This article backs up my beliefs if it is a good decision to have a smartboard. My projector is going out that has been in the room for three years. They are replacing it which costs a lot of money. The board in my room is very sensitive and the right side does not write properly even after you orient the board. Our tech guy is calling on my board becasuse you can not extend the page in smart notebook it makes the page narrow instead of making the page longer. http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/08/04/interactive-whiteboards-truths-and-consequences.aspx Casey Bromwich While I feel that interactive white boards can be a great resource in the classroom, I do not feel that they are worth the investment for schools. It has been my experience that teachers with interactive whiteboards often are undertrained and in return, they are used to be flashy. Teachers ar using them just as they would a projection screen or regular whiteboard. To make whiteboards worth the investment, districts need to also invest in the professional development needed to allow staff members to use the white board in transforming ways. Diane Coffey
This article brings up many points that I agree with. Since there is normally only one IWB in a classroom, using one encourages attention at the front (or side or wherever the IWB is) of the room just like in the teacher-centered “good ole days”. For the five or six thousand dollars spent on an IWB, a classroom could be equipped with several student computers or laptops that would engage ALL students in a classroom. http://whatedsaid.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/why-do-i-need-an-interactive-white-board/
Many teachers argue that having an IWB in a classroom looks like progress. A couple of kids go to the front of the room and tap on the board, WHILE THE REST OF THE CLASS WATCHES. Not very different from the status quo! Some teachers enjoyed being able to save what was done on the board and posting that file as notes for their students. That’s a nice feature but there are other cheaper, even free, ways to do the same thing. http://www.teacherleaders.org/node/5089
In a great blog, one teacher describes the ultimate learning environment as a place where students collaborate and create knowledge together. In this scene, the teacher is a guide and not the focus of attention. In no way does using an IWB facilitate this environment. As a matter of fact, it may reinforce just the opposite. http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radical/2010/01/wasting-money-on-whiteboards.html
Lori Horner
I read a study that listed some disadvantages of interactive white boards and one that was very clear was the fact that there is no good research that validates long term learning for students. The fact is, it's a relatively new and quite expensive gadget that is exciting for students and teachers to look at and use. The question is, will students become used the whiteboard as a regular classroom component and then lose interest? When overhead projectors were new, they too held a students attention much longer than chalk board notes. http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Electronic_Whiteboards#Disadvantages_for_the_students
I have some personal experience I'd like to throw "in the mix" as well. I taught in Middle School at a district for 14 years where students had an opportunity to participate in full-fledged eMINTS classrooms for one grade level while attending elementary school. Reading scores in the district continued to decline over the years which lead me to do some research of my own. Keep in mind that about 40 students a year participated in the eMINTS program. By the time those students reached middle school, their reading scores showed no more improvement than the students who attended regular classes. I spent hours and hours testing reading levels and looking at student records over the years. My point is, if the technology doesn't improve the basic educational foundation, how useful is it , really? Interactive white boards are a tool but if they don't improve the basic educational foundation, are they worth it? We have no studies that show growth over time and the expense to school districts is immense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061005522.html
In this Washington Post article written in 2006, the author describes a classroom teacher using the interactive whiteboard with students actually falling asleep. This brings about another thought to it's disadvantages. In order to view the whiteboard with accuracy, the room must have a minimal light source. Is this a learning environment conducive to all students?
Here is an article written by Robert Marzano, a leading researcher in education and released by ASCD. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov09/vol67/num03/Teaching-with-Interactive-Whiteboards.aspx
The research that he conducted basically states that students achievment improved by 16 points using interactive whiteboards but an interesting part of the article also states that it's use lowered 23 percent of the scores. That is an indicator of the usefulness as associated with the teacher. Without proper training and real research, the whiteboard can actually hinder a student's learning. So, the cost of the interactive whiteboard, coupled with the need for teacher training, makes the whiteboard as very expensive tool and certainly not the only tool for good teaching.
Valerie Howland
Most classrooms I have taught in have had an interactive whiteboard of some kind. Having utilized this tool on many occasions, I considered myself a fan and had one on my layout of an ideal classroom. I failed to see why anyone would not want one in their classroom. However, after doing some research I have found some points of view that have made me question my original thoughts.
Read the article by Dr. Gary Stagner at http://www.techlearning.com/article/Whiteboards-A-Modest-Proposal/47677 .
In his article “A Modest Proposal,” he leaves no doubt about his feelings for interactive smart boards. While his view may be extreme, he does bring up some valid points. How often do teachers actually use the interactive features of the Smart board? Would a simple projector be sufficient? Looking back at my own lessons, I will admit that at least half of them would have been just fine with simply the projector. A projector allows for anything that is on the computer screen to be projected onto a surface. Movies, websites, and information can still be displayed.
In fact, according to the following article, technology is advancing that will allow projectors to turn any surface into an interactive whiteboard at about half the cost. http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/01/13/new-projector-makes-any-wall-an-interactive-whiteboard/
Cost is certainly one of the prohibiting factors of bringing an interactive whiteboard into the classroom. In addition to the initial cost of purchasing the actual device, there is training for teachers, software, and maintenance to consider.
Whiteboards also have additional problems. http://www.ehow.com/list_7253755_problems-interactive-whiteboards.html
This article from ehow lists safety, visibility, time, and positioning as four significant problems with the whiteboards. Safety can become an issue with all the cords and wires needed to connect the various pieces of hardware. Visibility can be an issue depending on where you sit in the classroom. The light can also be hard on the eyes. The time needed to create lessons that fully utilize the smart board’s capabilities can be tremendous. We all know how limited our time is! Finally the positioning of a whiteboard can be problematic especially in lower grade levels. If the board is positioned low enough for students, it will be awkward for the teacher to write. The reverse holds true as well.
One school I was in had only mobile Smart boards. The teacher I was working with indicated that teachers rarely used them because of the time and hassle involved with positioning the correctly.
Lisa Kraus:
Because Interactive White Boards are so new to the classroom environment, there are many mixed feelings about whether they are successful enough or worth putting them into our schools. In this article provided, both positive and negative positions are addressed. However, I will be taking a negative outlook on the Interactive White Board due to the following factors: cost, training and motivation. Interactive White Boards can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $6,000 depending on the system and other technologies that come with that system. If you multiply that cost by the number of classrooms in each school, it is an overwhelming amount of money in a difficult economic time. To many, it's just not practical. Also, because most of our teachers are not used to this new technology and have limited training on how to use these boards, more cost and time for this will be a factor, as well. There may be a high interest for Interactive While Boards right away, but how often will devices like these be pushed to the side because of lack of knowledge on how to use them, technical difficulties, and lack of motivation to use them throughout the day?? http://www2.potsdam.edu/batestm190/Portfolio/files/IWB.pdf
Another article addresses the constant concern one has for the motivation to use these devices by the teachers, as well as the motivation students have after they are already introduced to it. It may me interesting at first, but as the article states, we are in a "generation less easily "wow-ed" by technological innovation." Based on a 2-year study, this article also tells us that “pupils in schools with whiteboards scored no better in key stage 2 Sats than pupils in schools without boards." So my question is, Why would a school district want to pay for the cost of these boards when there is no noticeable evidence to help with the success of our students? http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/blogs/scott-thornbury/interactive-whiteboards-again
Amy Hilkerbaumer
Interactive Whiteboards need to go. The cost alone should be the deciding factor (of course there are others). The cost to purchase, maintain, upgrade, train (teachers and students) is all way too much. Schools are struggling financially as it is. Money could be and should be spent elsewhere. I look around the school that I currently work in and can name numerous things that need to be improved/upgraded badly. There are IWBs at my school, but not in every classroom. There is one in the library, that I have never seen used except to be used as a projector screen for a VCR training video on sexual harassment!
IWBs are big. They need to be placed in an area of the classroom that can be seen by all of the students, which is most likely always going to be at the front of the classroom. Therefore, many teachers begin to feel trapped by the board. They feel that they need to incorporate it into every lesson (which for the money that is spent on them...they probably should). This means, developing new lesson plans AND behavior plans (because students are forced to wait their turn to go up to the IWB, they may find other things to do to occupy their time). Plus, teachers need to keep it interesting. While the students may be excited about the new toy in their room, we all know that kids lose interest...and fast. Better keep it interesting for that price tag. Which may mean teachers taking the time to watch tutorials or go to professional developments on new programs (more money).
Accuracy is another issue. If the projector or board is bumped and happens to shift...the accuracy is thrown off. Now its time to call in maintenance and/or IT to alleviate the problem. Now the teacher is stuck trying to figure out what to do because the IWB is out of commission. If the surface of the board is marred in some way, the replacement cost is an issue.
I agree with the gentleman in the second link (see below), iPads are just as good. Plus, if there is more than one in a classroom, students are not forced to wait as long for their turn. They can be placed into small groups. And the teacher would not be forever frozen at the front of the classroom.
As an individual who has only recently begun to learn how to use an Interactive Whiteboard, I do not believe that they are cost-effective, and I think thay school districts are being misled when they purchase a SMART board. I feel that the negative aspects of purchasing an IWB far outweigh the positive aspects. While researching the topic of whether Interactive Whiteboards are worth the investment for schools, I came across a couple different articles that I found to be helpful, and I think that many great points were made that support my claim.
First of all, I have seen firsthand the problems with the technology itself. Many teachers who have SMART board access in their classroom utilize their board on a daily basis and center their lesson around the board use. Personally, I believe that this puts teachers in a bind when their technology fails them. It is inevitable, the parts will not funtion correctly 100% of the time. There must be a backup plan for teachers when this happpens. This is a probem that many teachers do not take into consideration when they are formulating a lesson plan. Then, when a problem arises, teachers are using instructional time to try to troubleshoot and fix the errors. How is this beneficial to our students?
Another downfall to the IWB is that students are not going to magically become interested in it. The students that didn't pay attention when you had a chalkboard or a dry-erase board are the same students that are not going to be engaged in a shiny white square in front of them. There are still going to be sleepers, there are still going to be kids with the 'deer in the headlight' expression on their face when the teacher asks for their input because they weren't paying attention. Actually, the problematic behaviors most teachers experience out of the troubled children are most likely going to increase. Think about it; the teacher goes up to write on the IWB... where are her eyes? Facing the class? NO! They are looking where to write. How can you manage a class when you are spending 30 % of the class time facing the board because you are responsible for filling it with information that students have to copy down? Yes, that's right. I said "copy down." The SMART technology is great, but it does not make students automatically remember things, therefore they still must take notes. This means that they are doing the same exact thing that they were doing without the SMART board. The lecture aspect of the class does not go away, it is only beautified by an IWB.
The next negative thing about IWB's are the fact that they need to be aligned... again, and again, and again. Teachers have to hold a special stylus for the IWB, and only the tip of it can touch the board. (Not the palm of your hand, not the tip of your pinky, etc.) Many times, if a board is touched twice at the same time, it needs to be readjusted. Also, no matter where the projector is mounted for the SMART board, it still casts a shadow on the board when you get close to it. That means that there is a shadow where the teacher is preparing to write. This is frustrating for teachers, and is the most complained about feature that I saw. The teacher's penmanship is also jeopardized, because of the chunky, blocky images projected when the stylus is used.
In addition to the several points I made already, a few other general complaints I found are listed below.
difficulty in students reaching the board
training cost to learn to use the equipment
additional training required to master IWB use
hardware failures
costly (all estimates I found were between $5000 and $6000 for the whole setup)
the cost to move a smartboard is the same as purchasing a new one
Hard to write. The biggest disappointment with the digital ink comes from the fact that a SMART Board is a front-mounted projection screen. This means that your data projector is set up in front of the screen (like an overhead projector). Which means that when you stand in between the projector and the screen, you cast a shadow on the screen... right where you are trying to write. Sure, it was cool to interact with programs by touching the screen, but, it was hard to write notes because you were constantly blocking the image.
Hard to write neatly. To be perfectly honest, it was a little disappointing how our handwriting turned out on the SMART Board. Better than our experiences with the other digital pens (i.e. the i-pen), but the handwriting was still large, blocky, and messy. One of the things you have to train yourself to do is to not lean up against the SMART Board. When you write on a blackboard or white board, you typically rest the edge of your palm on the board. If you do that on a touch screen, the cursor jumps to your palm and it doesn't work out. You have to train yourself to just write using the tip of the pen. The marker worked fine if we wanted to underline or circle key ideas, but if you wanted to edit or revise a 12 point, double-spaced Word Document, you'd have a hard time getting the control required.
You still have to move back and forth from the keyboard to the screen. We could start up our web browser by touching the SMART board, but when it came time to enter in the website address, we had to go back to the desk to type in the URL.
Expensive. The Total Cost of Ownership of a SMART Board can be prohibitive for the classroom teacher. Retail cost of a 77? (195.6cm) front-projection SMART Board Interactive whiteboard is $1399 (USD) with a grant from the SMARTer Kids Foundation of Canada. (www.SmarterKids.org)
You need to supply your own data projector. A new, decent projector will cost around $500 - $1000. The SMART Board is just a giant touch pad. Your need to provide your own projector to display the image onto the smart board. (Software, connection cables, and stand are included.)
You may want to upgrade to a wireless connection ($199 USD) to eliminate the cables and the tripping hazards in the classroom. The screen image and the SMART Board touch screen may get knocked out of alignment. This means that when you try to click a button, the mouse pointer appears a few inches to the side. You'll have to realign your hardware which would interrupt the lesson.
Also there is a Youtube interview of pros and cons of smartboards. It's length but it has several points how a Smartboard just becomes a white board without more traing (more money), computers, microscopes, and other technology advances hooked to the smartboard (more $$). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNtcHJfwj8
Interactive White Boards (IWB) may be very attractive to the eye and may be very exciting at first but how long do the IWB's keep their luster with the students and the teachers? How equipped are the teachers to actually use the IWB's to there full potential? How much money is the school district putting out to supply the classrooms with an IWB? Is the investment worth it?
Looking at many pro and con list about the IWB I see the concerns as viable and good issues to think about. Lets look at the issue of money, not only are the boards themselves very expensive but you also have to buy the projector and more than likely upgrade to a WiFi connection. Couldn't that money be put towards other items that the students need that would be more beneficial to their learning? With the economy suffering and the educational budget getting smaller I do not see the urgency to put forth a large amount of money on IWB's, put that money towards curriculum that will improve the students learning environment.
Teachers that are being supplied with an IWB in their classroom need PROPER training on how to use them and to actually use them to supplement the curriculum. If the school districts are going to provide this training that is going to cost the district even more money. If the school district does provide good training for the teachers the IWB's will most likely collect dust and be a huge waste of money.
While the IWB's are neat only one person is able to use it at one time. Many teachers have had math contests on their white boards to see who can complete the equation first, with an IWB this is not possible. If the IWB is being used to access different sites on the internet the teacher still has to walk back and forth between the IWB and the computer that is hooked up to it because of the need of the key board.
I feel that the school districts need to truely weigh out the cons before they start investing all their money into the IWBs. http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Electronic_Whiteboards#The_Drawbacks http://rsatechnologies.in/smart-board-pros-and-cons-of-using-a-digital-interactive-whiteboard-in-the-classroom.html http://blog.classroomteacher.ca/27/classroom-technology/
Pam Crocker
Coming from a business background I like to look at the nuts and bolts of any issue. This is what I found:
In a video that shows a school district debating on whether or not to purchase IWB's, the school stated that it would cost them $4million to put IWB's in 1000 classrooms. That equals out to be $4000 per classroom. This video is from 2007, so in actuality the numbers would probably be even higher today. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbKDhNfyFVg)
They also did not discuss the additional cost of training. Teachers would need training to get the most out of this investment, so a school would have to add training cost and additional staff to cover a teacher while they were gone to training.
Another question I had was, how long does the equipment last? The answer I received from the SMART company that produces the SMART Board is that, "most people budget for a three-to-five year useful life for projectors and PCs and expect about the same for the SMART Board interactive whiteboard". Although they also said that some equipment is still being used 8-12 years after being installed, the SMART Board only has a 5 year warranty. ( http://www.digitallearning.in/articles/article-details.asp?articleid=2089&typ=CORPORATE%20DIARY)
In the video I watched, they also stated that many of the teachers were not utilizing the IWB's to their full potential. They stated that they were only using them like expensive white boards. I really feel that after seeing the facts that, although IWB's are a great tool for classrooms, they are not a necessity. Learning has gone on long before IWB's and can surely happen now without them. Spending $4000 per classroom every 5 years for a piece of equipment that, as the video stated, seemed to be a glorified overhead projector, is outragous. I equate this to the difference between smart phone and a regular cell phone: I can make a phone call on both, I can text on both, and I can take and send pictures on both - the only difference is that one makes me look way cooler!
Lindsay Griffin
Incorporating technology into the classroom is always a difficult maneuver. Many school districts want to claim they are technologically savvy, however, having access to technology and effectively using it are two different pieces of the pie. One way that school districts are trying to incorporate new technology into the classroom is through use of Interactive Whiteboards (IWB's). An IWB looks a lot like a standard whiteboard, however, this board is connected to a computer and a projector. IWB's come in a variety of styles, including resistive membrane boards, electro-magnetic boards, and laser scanners. Resistive membrane boards are touch sensitive. A teacher or student can use their fingers or a special stylus to write on these boards. Touch sensitive boards, however, can be very tricky and often have a mind of their own. Too much pressure can damage the board, resulting in costly repairs. Too little pressure can result in information not being processed and time being wasted by continually re-doing work. Resistive membrane boards cannot be written on with regular markers either. If a teacher, student, or more likely a substitute teacher were to mark on the board with a regular dry erase marker, the board would be permanently damaged. Electro-magnetic boards are a combination of traditional whiteboards and an IWB. These boards can be written on with regular pens or battery operated pens that give off a magnetic field and that field is detected through the board. Constantly running through batteries and changing them out can be quite a hassle for a teacher, especially if they run out of batteries in the classroom. You can still switch back to regular pens, but that almost defeats the purpose of having expensive battery operated pens to begin with. The laser scanner board is very high tech. Teachers can only write on laser scanner boards with a very special stylus that has a felt tip. The movement of the stylus is detected by lasers on the board and thus reflected on the board. If any of these lasers were to become damaged, the repairs are costly and there is no alternative to writing. Along with the individual issues each one of these IWB's can have, there are many issues across the board that can be costly to school districts and take away from teaching and learning. It goes without question that there are a variety of technical issues that can arise with IWB's. Image resolution and tracing capabilities are among the top issues teachers report. For example, can the IWB keep up with the teacher or student writing on the board? Are the words and letters legible? If tracking speeds are delayed and image resolution is low, is this really and effective use of money for a school district and time invested by the teacher? Security is also another costly investment in addition to the initial purchase and investment in updates of IWB's. If the IWB is portable, how much would it cost for a district to prevent theft? Even though the portability is convenient for teachers, the board must be properly aligned with the projector in order for the IWB to work correctly. Just getting the IWB aligned properly can be a huge waste of time for teacher and students. Fixed IWB's eliminate the additional security measures, but they don't account for ease of use for teachers and students. The effectiveness of an IWB in a high school classroom is different than the effectiveness of and IWB in an elementary school classroom. What happens if the students are being involved with the use of an IWB but they can't reach high enough to touch something? That same question can be applied to teachers as well. Finally, in addition to all the costs to keeps the computer updated with newer versions of software, there is going to be additional expenses to keep the IWB software updated as well. What happens when a version of a software program comes out that may not be compatible with the IWB? All the information can become distorted and mumble jumbled, thus, wasting the time invested in creating the lesson on the teachers part and having to quickly think of another way to present the material.
The overall look of an Interactive Whiteboard in the classroom provides great appeal to many school districts, teachers, students, and parents. However, with the high cost of initial investment, additional costs of continual updates, technological issues, security issues, and useability, IWB's may not be the best use of district money and time.
Are Interactive White Boards worth the investment for schools? Do they benefit the teaching and learning process? How or how not?
Please make sure you type your name at the very begining of your response. This will allow me to give credit where credit is due.
Justin Kaminski
On the outset and before looking further into this topic I thought smart boards were of great benefit. Looking purely at the technology aspect and the newness of this technology I thought that would be a great combination for both keeping students engaged and furthering the impact of their learning. It was not until I found the below article that I started to think of the possible drawbacks as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6309691.stm
The one that struck me immediately was the cost of the smart boards. While the article isn't in an American denomination it still illustrates the point. With the money that is being spent it could be just as easily used somewhere else. Even if the technology or means are not as recent as the smart board that doesn't automatically mean the students will not benefit. The article brought up a couple of great reasons why. One that stuck out to me was the students concentrating more on the actual smart board itself and the glamour that comes with new technology and less on what is being taught. The students were blinded by the new product and as a result there was no documented proof that students performance increased with use. In addition teachers fell in the same category. Teachers became so caught up in what the smart board could do and the possibilities that the content in which they taught lacked substance. With that being said even with the awareness of the possibilities teachers didn't take advantage of them. For instance the article states they didn't use the music and video functions which in my eyes would have most certainly grabbed the attention of the students and would have made for a profoundly impactful anticipatory set. This is not to say that the fault falls strictly on the teachers lap, it also fell on the part of the school or district for not providing a training mechanism in which benefits the teachers and students. In most cases the teachers were subject to all day training workshops in which information was thrown at a rate that made it basically impossible to retain. This was then transcended to the students in the form of losing interest due to slowness in the class while teachers worked through the kinks of operation.
Lack of student participation and interest has been linked to the type of student as well. Studies in the article showed that students who were slower to pick up on things lost interest due to the inability to understand how they were to use the smart board. On the other end students seen as advanced were left bored as they were less impressed with the new technology and therefore not inclined to entertain the topic and weren't left with the desire to learn further. Upon further research after the smart board was released for a period of time it was concluded that more conventional means of instruction faired better. To me that reflects directly on the teacher and makes logical sense. The teacher must achieve the buy in and trust of the student before they can be effectively reached. In my opinion this can not be achieved by a machine. I am of the belief that there is no substitute for the words and insight that can be relayed if done creatively by the teacher. It is the responsibility of the teacher to ensure that their students are left with a meaningful learning experience that will benefit them not only in the classroom but into the future. Yes, that will take time as well much as a smart board training class will. However, with the lack of lagtime due to figuring out the technology there is a better chance the students will stay engaged. As long as the teacher sticks to meaningful and pertinent facts along with the back up of an activity, group work or any type of interactive group activity the students will be given the best chance. If the students are given a way to relate to the material there should be no reason to explore other options if it isn't madatory. An example I always use is a video we were shown in my Spanish I class in 8th grade. The purpose of the video was to learn South American countries and their capitals. The song that accompanied the video was catchy and therefore drew us in to the meaning of the lesson. As a matter of fact I watched the video for our week four optional post and was able to sing along and recall all of the countries and their capitals. This may not seem meaningful but please take into account I haven't watched the video or thought about South American countries or their capitals since I was in that class in 1993. Therefore I feel it falls on the teacher, their ability and desire to make the lesson(s) impactful and not so much on the technology in use.
Christina Hoskins
I love my smart board that is in my classroom. However, I do believe there is a negative side to the smartboard. It is extremely expensive along with the cost of the bulbs for the projector. A smartboard is only a good as the instructor. If your instruction can not make a lesson meaningful and interesting the smartboard is not going to help. It will get it a better apeal for a little while but it is the instructor that makes the board worth while. Teachers need to be trained to used the board correctly and effectively for lessons. This article backs up my beliefs if it is a good decision to have a smartboard. My projector is going out that has been in the room for three years. They are replacing it which costs a lot of money. The board in my room is very sensitive and the right side does not write properly even after you orient the board. Our tech guy is calling on my board becasuse you can not extend the page in smart notebook it makes the page narrow instead of making the page longer.
http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/08/04/interactive-whiteboards-truths-and-consequences.aspx
Casey Bromwich
While I feel that interactive white boards can be a great resource in the classroom, I do not feel that they are worth the investment for schools. It has been my experience that teachers with interactive whiteboards often are undertrained and in return, they are used to be flashy. Teachers ar using them just as they would a projection screen or regular whiteboard. To make whiteboards worth the investment, districts need to also invest in the professional development needed to allow staff members to use the white board in transforming ways.
Diane Coffey
This article brings up many points that I agree with. Since there is normally only one IWB in a classroom, using one encourages attention at the front (or side or wherever the IWB is) of the room just like in the teacher-centered “good ole days”. For the five or six thousand dollars spent on an IWB, a classroom could be equipped with several student computers or laptops that would engage ALL students in a classroom.
http://whatedsaid.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/why-do-i-need-an-interactive-white-board/
Many teachers argue that having an IWB in a classroom looks like progress. A couple of kids go to the front of the room and tap on the board, WHILE THE REST OF THE CLASS WATCHES. Not very different from the status quo! Some teachers enjoyed being able to save what was done on the board and posting that file as notes for their students. That’s a nice feature but there are other cheaper, even free, ways to do the same thing.
http://www.teacherleaders.org/node/5089
In a great blog, one teacher describes the ultimate learning environment as a place where students collaborate and create knowledge together. In this scene, the teacher is a guide and not the focus of attention. In no way does using an IWB facilitate this environment. As a matter of fact, it may reinforce just the opposite.
http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radical/2010/01/wasting-money-on-whiteboards.html
Lisa Nielsen, creator ofThe Innovative Educator blog says of interactive white boards, “The IWB is merely a highly overpaid insignificant extra that can be replaced by any number of other free and more effective substitutes.” This statement pretty much sums up how I feel about interactive white boards so I just had to quote it.
http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2010/07/iwbs-are-not-stars-theyre-overpaid.html
Lori Horner
I read a study that listed some disadvantages of interactive white boards and one that was very clear was the fact that there is no good research that validates long term learning for students. The fact is, it's a relatively new and quite expensive gadget that is exciting for students and teachers to look at and use. The question is, will students become used the whiteboard as a regular classroom component and then lose interest? When overhead projectors were new, they too held a students attention much longer than chalk board notes.
http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Electronic_Whiteboards#Disadvantages_for_the_students
I have some personal experience I'd like to throw "in the mix" as well. I taught in Middle School at a district for 14 years where students had an opportunity to participate in full-fledged eMINTS classrooms for one grade level while attending elementary school. Reading scores in the district continued to decline over the years which lead me to do some research of my own. Keep in mind that about 40 students a year participated in the eMINTS program. By the time those students reached middle school, their reading scores showed no more improvement than the students who attended regular classes. I spent hours and hours testing reading levels and looking at student records over the years. My point is, if the technology doesn't improve the basic educational foundation, how useful is it , really? Interactive white boards are a tool but if they don't improve the basic educational foundation, are they worth it? We have no studies that show growth over time and the expense to school districts is immense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061005522.html
In this Washington Post article written in 2006, the author describes a classroom teacher using the interactive whiteboard with students actually falling asleep. This brings about another thought to it's disadvantages. In order to view the whiteboard with accuracy, the room must have a minimal light source. Is this a learning environment conducive to all students?
Here is an article written by Robert Marzano, a leading researcher in education and released by ASCD.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov09/vol67/num03/Teaching-with-Interactive-Whiteboards.aspx
The research that he conducted basically states that students achievment improved by 16 points using interactive whiteboards but an interesting part of the article also states that it's use lowered 23 percent of the scores. That is an indicator of the usefulness as associated with the teacher. Without proper training and real research, the whiteboard can actually hinder a student's learning. So, the cost of the interactive whiteboard, coupled with the need for teacher training, makes the whiteboard as very expensive tool and certainly not the only tool for good teaching.
Valerie Howland
Most classrooms I have taught in have had an interactive whiteboard of some kind. Having utilized this tool on many occasions, I considered myself a fan and had one on my layout of an ideal classroom. I failed to see why anyone would not want one in their classroom. However, after doing some research I have found some points of view that have made me question my original thoughts.
Read the article by Dr. Gary Stagner at http://www.techlearning.com/article/Whiteboards-A-Modest-Proposal/47677 .
In his article “A Modest Proposal,” he leaves no doubt about his feelings for interactive smart boards. While his view may be extreme, he does bring up some valid points. How often do teachers actually use the interactive features of the Smart board? Would a simple projector be sufficient? Looking back at my own lessons, I will admit that at least half of them would have been just fine with simply the projector. A projector allows for anything that is on the computer screen to be projected onto a surface. Movies, websites, and information can still be displayed.
In fact, according to the following article, technology is advancing that will allow projectors to turn any surface into an interactive whiteboard at about half the cost.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/01/13/new-projector-makes-any-wall-an-interactive-whiteboard/
Cost is certainly one of the prohibiting factors of bringing an interactive whiteboard into the classroom. In addition to the initial cost of purchasing the actual device, there is training for teachers, software, and maintenance to consider.
Whiteboards also have additional problems.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7253755_problems-interactive-whiteboards.html
This article from ehow lists safety, visibility, time, and positioning as four significant problems with the whiteboards. Safety can become an issue with all the cords and wires needed to connect the various pieces of hardware. Visibility can be an issue depending on where you sit in the classroom. The light can also be hard on the eyes. The time needed to create lessons that fully utilize the smart board’s capabilities can be tremendous. We all know how limited our time is! Finally the positioning of a whiteboard can be problematic especially in lower grade levels. If the board is positioned low enough for students, it will be awkward for the teacher to write. The reverse holds true as well.
One school I was in had only mobile Smart boards. The teacher I was working with indicated that teachers rarely used them because of the time and hassle involved with positioning the correctly.
Lisa Kraus:
Because Interactive White Boards are so new to the classroom environment, there are many mixed feelings about whether they are successful enough or worth putting them into our schools. In this article provided, both positive and negative positions are addressed. However, I will be taking a negative outlook on the Interactive White Board due to the following factors: cost, training and motivation. Interactive White Boards can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $6,000 depending on the system and other technologies that come with that system. If you multiply that cost by the number of classrooms in each school, it is an overwhelming amount of money in a difficult economic time. To many, it's just not practical. Also, because most of our teachers are not used to this new technology and have limited training on how to use these boards, more cost and time for this will be a factor, as well. There may be a high interest for Interactive While Boards right away, but how often will devices like these be pushed to the side because of lack of knowledge on how to use them, technical difficulties, and lack of motivation to use them throughout the day??
http://www2.potsdam.edu/batestm190/Portfolio/files/IWB.pdf
Another article addresses the constant concern one has for the motivation to use these devices by the teachers, as well as the motivation students have after they are already introduced to it. It may me interesting at first, but as the article states, we are in a "generation less easily "wow-ed" by technological innovation." Based on a 2-year study, this article also tells us that “pupils in schools with whiteboards scored no better in key stage 2 Sats than pupils in schools without boards." So my question is, Why would a school district want to pay for the cost of these boards when there is no noticeable evidence to help with the success of our students?
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/blogs/scott-thornbury/interactive-whiteboards-again
Amy Hilkerbaumer
Interactive Whiteboards need to go. The cost alone should be the deciding factor (of course there are others). The cost to purchase, maintain, upgrade, train (teachers and students) is all way too much. Schools are struggling financially as it is. Money could be and should be spent elsewhere. I look around the school that I currently work in and can name numerous things that need to be improved/upgraded badly. There are IWBs at my school, but not in every classroom. There is one in the library, that I have never seen used except to be used as a projector screen for a VCR training video on sexual harassment!
IWBs are big. They need to be placed in an area of the classroom that can be seen by all of the students, which is most likely always going to be at the front of the classroom. Therefore, many teachers begin to feel trapped by the board. They feel that they need to incorporate it into every lesson (which for the money that is spent on them...they probably should). This means, developing new lesson plans AND behavior plans (because students are forced to wait their turn to go up to the IWB, they may find other things to do to occupy their time). Plus, teachers need to keep it interesting. While the students may be excited about the new toy in their room, we all know that kids lose interest...and fast. Better keep it interesting for that price tag. Which may mean teachers taking the time to watch tutorials or go to professional developments on new programs (more money).
Accuracy is another issue. If the projector or board is bumped and happens to shift...the accuracy is thrown off. Now its time to call in maintenance and/or IT to alleviate the problem. Now the teacher is stuck trying to figure out what to do because the IWB is out of commission. If the surface of the board is marred in some way, the replacement cost is an issue.
I agree with the gentleman in the second link (see below), iPads are just as good. Plus, if there is more than one in a classroom, students are not forced to wait as long for their turn. They can be placed into small groups. And the teacher would not be forever frozen at the front of the classroom.
Enjoy these links. I did.
http://www.qualitytime-esl.com/spip.php?article184
http://www.ictsteps.com/2011/05/switching-off-the-interactive-white-board-for-good/
LIZ GREEN
As an individual who has only recently begun to learn how to use an Interactive Whiteboard, I do not believe that they are cost-effective, and I think thay school districts are being misled when they purchase a SMART board. I feel that the negative aspects of purchasing an IWB far outweigh the positive aspects. While researching the topic of whether Interactive Whiteboards are worth the investment for schools, I came across a couple different articles that I found to be helpful, and I think that many great points were made that support my claim.
First of all, I have seen firsthand the problems with the technology itself. Many teachers who have SMART board access in their classroom utilize their board on a daily basis and center their lesson around the board use. Personally, I believe that this puts teachers in a bind when their technology fails them. It is inevitable, the parts will not funtion correctly 100% of the time. There must be a backup plan for teachers when this happpens. This is a probem that many teachers do not take into consideration when they are formulating a lesson plan. Then, when a problem arises, teachers are using instructional time to try to troubleshoot and fix the errors. How is this beneficial to our students?
Another downfall to the IWB is that students are not going to magically become interested in it. The students that didn't pay attention when you had a chalkboard or a dry-erase board are the same students that are not going to be engaged in a shiny white square in front of them. There are still going to be sleepers, there are still going to be kids with the 'deer in the headlight' expression on their face when the teacher asks for their input because they weren't paying attention. Actually, the problematic behaviors most teachers experience out of the troubled children are most likely going to increase. Think about it; the teacher goes up to write on the IWB... where are her eyes? Facing the class? NO! They are looking where to write. How can you manage a class when you are spending 30 % of the class time facing the board because you are responsible for filling it with information that students have to copy down? Yes, that's right. I said "copy down." The SMART technology is great, but it does not make students automatically remember things, therefore they still must take notes. This means that they are doing the same exact thing that they were doing without the SMART board. The lecture aspect of the class does not go away, it is only beautified by an IWB.
The next negative thing about IWB's are the fact that they need to be aligned... again, and again, and again. Teachers have to hold a special stylus for the IWB, and only the tip of it can touch the board. (Not the palm of your hand, not the tip of your pinky, etc.) Many times, if a board is touched twice at the same time, it needs to be readjusted. Also, no matter where the projector is mounted for the SMART board, it still casts a shadow on the board when you get close to it. That means that there is a shadow where the teacher is preparing to write. This is frustrating for teachers, and is the most complained about feature that I saw. The teacher's penmanship is also jeopardized, because of the chunky, blocky images projected when the stylus is used.
In addition to the several points I made already, a few other general complaints I found are listed below.
Some resources that support my claim were located online, feel free to check them out. The site I enjoyed the most was from the Washington Post.
http://tusdstats.tusd.k12.az.us/planning/surveys/online/exsums/smrtbrd.asp
http://ezinearticles.com/?SMART-Board---Pros-and-Cons-of-Using-a-Digital-Interactive-Whiteboard-(in-the-classroom)&id=1399407
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061005522.html
http://teachers.net/mentors/whitebaords/topic162/1.21.11.00.38.15.html
Bubulka, Robyn- Waste of $$
Cons
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1399407
Also there is a Youtube interview of pros and cons of smartboards. It's length but it has several points how a Smartboard just becomes a white board without more traing (more money), computers, microscopes, and other technology advances hooked to the smartboard (more $$).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNtcHJfwj8
http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2011/09/07/my-district-spent-33-million-on-technology-and-all-i-got-are-these-lousy-test-scores/. Makes a great point of all this technology and no improvement.
Courtney Brown
Interactive White Boards (IWB) may be very attractive to the eye and may be very exciting at first but how long do the IWB's keep their luster with the students and the teachers? How equipped are the teachers to actually use the IWB's to there full potential? How much money is the school district putting out to supply the classrooms with an IWB? Is the investment worth it?
Looking at many pro and con list about the IWB I see the concerns as viable and good issues to think about. Lets look at the issue of money, not only are the boards themselves very expensive but you also have to buy the projector and more than likely upgrade to a WiFi connection. Couldn't that money be put towards other items that the students need that would be more beneficial to their learning? With the economy suffering and the educational budget getting smaller I do not see the urgency to put forth a large amount of money on IWB's, put that money towards curriculum that will improve the students learning environment.
Teachers that are being supplied with an IWB in their classroom need PROPER training on how to use them and to actually use them to supplement the curriculum. If the school districts are going to provide this training that is going to cost the district even more money. If the school district does provide good training for the teachers the IWB's will most likely collect dust and be a huge waste of money.
While the IWB's are neat only one person is able to use it at one time. Many teachers have had math contests on their white boards to see who can complete the equation first, with an IWB this is not possible. If the IWB is being used to access different sites on the internet the teacher still has to walk back and forth between the IWB and the computer that is hooked up to it because of the need of the key board.
I feel that the school districts need to truely weigh out the cons before they start investing all their money into the IWBs.
http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Electronic_Whiteboards#The_Drawbacks
http://rsatechnologies.in/smart-board-pros-and-cons-of-using-a-digital-interactive-whiteboard-in-the-classroom.html
http://blog.classroomteacher.ca/27/classroom-technology/
Pam Crocker
Coming from a business background I like to look at the nuts and bolts of any issue. This is what I found:
http://www.digitallearning.in/articles/article-details.asp?articleid=2089&typ=CORPORATE%20DIARY)
In the video I watched, they also stated that many of the teachers were not utilizing the IWB's to their full potential. They stated that they were only using them like expensive white boards. I really feel that after seeing the facts that, although IWB's are a great tool for classrooms, they are not a necessity. Learning has gone on long before IWB's and can surely happen now without them. Spending $4000 per classroom every 5 years for a piece of equipment that, as the video stated, seemed to be a glorified overhead projector, is outragous. I equate this to the difference between smart phone and a regular cell phone: I can make a phone call on both, I can text on both, and I can take and send pictures on both - the only difference is that one makes me look way cooler!
Lindsay Griffin
Incorporating technology into the classroom is always a difficult maneuver. Many school districts want to claim they are technologically savvy, however, having access to technology and effectively using it are two different pieces of the pie. One way that school districts are trying to incorporate new technology into the classroom is through use of Interactive Whiteboards (IWB's). An IWB looks a lot like a standard whiteboard, however, this board is connected to a computer and a projector. IWB's come in a variety of styles, including resistive membrane boards, electro-magnetic boards, and laser scanners. Resistive membrane boards are touch sensitive. A teacher or student can use their fingers or a special stylus to write on these boards. Touch sensitive boards, however, can be very tricky and often have a mind of their own. Too much pressure can damage the board, resulting in costly repairs. Too little pressure can result in information not being processed and time being wasted by continually re-doing work. Resistive membrane boards cannot be written on with regular markers either. If a teacher, student, or more likely a substitute teacher were to mark on the board with a regular dry erase marker, the board would be permanently damaged. Electro-magnetic boards are a combination of traditional whiteboards and an IWB. These boards can be written on with regular pens or battery operated pens that give off a magnetic field and that field is detected through the board. Constantly running through batteries and changing them out can be quite a hassle for a teacher, especially if they run out of batteries in the classroom. You can still switch back to regular pens, but that almost defeats the purpose of having expensive battery operated pens to begin with. The laser scanner board is very high tech. Teachers can only write on laser scanner boards with a very special stylus that has a felt tip. The movement of the stylus is detected by lasers on the board and thus reflected on the board. If any of these lasers were to become damaged, the repairs are costly and there is no alternative to writing. Along with the individual issues each one of these IWB's can have, there are many issues across the board that can be costly to school districts and take away from teaching and learning. It goes without question that there are a variety of technical issues that can arise with IWB's. Image resolution and tracing capabilities are among the top issues teachers report. For example, can the IWB keep up with the teacher or student writing on the board? Are the words and letters legible? If tracking speeds are delayed and image resolution is low, is this really and effective use of money for a school district and time invested by the teacher? Security is also another costly investment in addition to the initial purchase and investment in updates of IWB's. If the IWB is portable, how much would it cost for a district to prevent theft? Even though the portability is convenient for teachers, the board must be properly aligned with the projector in order for the IWB to work correctly. Just getting the IWB aligned properly can be a huge waste of time for teacher and students. Fixed IWB's eliminate the additional security measures, but they don't account for ease of use for teachers and students. The effectiveness of an IWB in a high school classroom is different than the effectiveness of and IWB in an elementary school classroom. What happens if the students are being involved with the use of an IWB but they can't reach high enough to touch something? That same question can be applied to teachers as well. Finally, in addition to all the costs to keeps the computer updated with newer versions of software, there is going to be additional expenses to keep the IWB software updated as well. What happens when a version of a software program comes out that may not be compatible with the IWB? All the information can become distorted and mumble jumbled, thus, wasting the time invested in creating the lesson on the teachers part and having to quickly think of another way to present the material.
The overall look of an Interactive Whiteboard in the classroom provides great appeal to many school districts, teachers, students, and parents. However, with the high cost of initial investment, additional costs of continual updates, technological issues, security issues, and useability, IWB's may not be the best use of district money and time.
Brown, S. Interactive Whiteboards in Education. TechLearn. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Interactivewhiteboards.pdf